re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by Champagne on 11/25/12 at 5:05 pm to mograyback

quote:Or did a make a truthful observation about why people treated them badly? Yeah that's what I thought, you no neck jarhead.

Don't be dissuaded from your realistic attitude towards these worthless baby killers who call themselves "veterans". You are correct to call it like it is. These denizens of decent society suck up trillions of dollars that we need to spend elsewhere, and, I'm glad that we have people like you who see the truth.

Keep voting Democrat, my friend, and, be vocal about the Truth that you speak. Soon, the world will recognize your genius !

PS I also urge you to direct your keen insight into the entire notion of loyalty to the USA. It's a farce, when you think about it. The USA is evil, as you know, and needs to be fundamentally changed, as you know. So, keep up the good fight ! Mr. Ho Chi Minh is certainly proud of you !

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by Teddy Ruxpin on 11/25/12 at 5:09 pm to Powerman

My dad is an Air Force Vietnam vet. He only tells of one story where he caught shite. Some woman called him a baby killer when he was in his hometown in Connecticut in front of his friends. He hasnt told me any thing else on that front so I suppose it was the only one.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by I B Freeman on 11/25/12 at 5:17 pm to Teddy Ruxpin

LBJ was the worst President of the 20th century without question. He carried this war on and escalated it to the point we had 500,000 drafted men in the mess. His rationale--he said he was not going to be the first US President to lose a war. I hate him for it.

I remember coming up through school you didn't talk about what you were going to do after high school you talked about what you were going to do after you went to the army.

Thankfully Nixon ended the draft as proposed by Milton Friedman while as I in high school. I know several real vets. One in my family was in the very worst part of the war and was at the major battles of 68 and 69. Doesn't talk about it at all. Another man in our community was shot down over Laos. His mother died 30 years later still believing her son may still be alive.

I can't stand to hear democrats say good things about LBJ. He screwed us domestically and at war.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by diat150 on 11/25/12 at 5:29 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:Sounds like BS to me, for over three decades any of about 50 diseases remotely possibly related to agent orange have been fast tracked for immediate classification as service connected. If you got a disease and a DD214 tht shows you were anywhere near the use of agent orange you are covered.

well then you should check your bs meter because he had a heart attack due to ischemic heart disease and has had alot of probems with his prostate. Its been well over a year now and nothing.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by CarrolltonTiger on 11/25/12 at 7:06 pm to diat150

and both conditions are among a myriad of conditions for which the veteran has to prove NO connection between the agent orange and the disease,

They only have to prove honorable service and some exposure to agent orange.

The government couldn't make it any easier for the Vet who has some casual proof of service and some possible exposure to agent orange.

An old dude getting prostate cance and ischemic heart disease isn't particularly unusual and it doesn't need agent orange to be the catalyst, BBTAIM, NO PROOF OF CONNECTION IS REQUIRED, not any connection at all besides service and exposure.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by diat150 on 11/25/12 at 8:58 pm to CarrolltonTiger

quote:and both conditions are among a myriad of conditions for which the veteran has to prove NO connection between the agent orange and the disease,

They only have to prove honorable service and some exposure to agent orange.

The government couldn't make it any easier for the Vet who has some casual proof of service and some possible exposure to agent orange.

An old dude getting prostate cance and ischemic heart disease isn't particularly unusual and it doesn't need agent orange to be the catalyst, BBTAIM, NO PROOF OF CONNECTION IS REQUIRED, not any connection at all besides service and exposure.

you make it sound easier than what it is obviously. my dad was on the ground in vietnam.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by germandawg on 11/26/12 at 5:56 am to Powerman

This is one of my favorite myths from the right. Spitting on Soliders started somewhere around 1980 when Stallone mentions it in "First Blood". Anyone who thinks that a number of US soldiers were spit on and did not retaliate by whipping someones arse is admitting that they think US Soldiers are wussies. There is no way that you could spit on more than a select few soldiers and not get in a fist fight and someone having to write a report about the incident. It never happened.

As far as attrocities during Vietnam those things are why you should avoid war and why people in nations like Afghanistan should be very careful of how they behave toward their neighbors around the globe. Don't like the idea of your wife and daughter being raped by foreign soldiers? Then don't harbor terrorists who slap the biggest bully in the playground. I am not suggesting that this has happened in Afghanistan I am just saying that civilized nations should only resort to war as a last ditch effort and at that point a bunch of raping and murdering and plundering and pillaging is not much worse than conditions are anyway...

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by dinosaur on 11/26/12 at 7:52 am to mograyback

A lot of "why" statements from someone who wasn't there. Vietnam was a "what the frick" war, where people here largely didn't even know where it was and then we found that we were sending troops there. So it began with a why are we there question. Then, to make it worse, the government started drafting young people to send there. Of course, the college kids didn't get sent, so the draft was largely made up of poor young men who had no interest in the war or the military. Finally, drug problems in the military got out of hand, combined with the attitude among some in the military that the natives were somehow less than human. The fact that the enemy did not wear a uniform and it was hard to tell who was the bad guy so everyone became the enemy. Then, anti-war protests became anti soldier. This was much worse in California, where most of the draftees came back to the states. And yes, the spitting, shite throwing, cursing, and total disrespect happened. But it wasn't really because they behaved badly. It was the beginning of the ultra left radical movement and the militry was the opposite - almost completely conservative. Many of the soldiers were shocked to find that they had honored the draft call (rather than run to Canada), served their time in hell, and then got disrespected when they returned. I was not drafted (my number was 287) but I am old enough to know what took place. It was a shameful time.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by Tesla on 11/26/12 at 8:36 am to germandawg

quote:This is one of my favorite myths from the right. Spitting on Soliders started somewhere around 1980 when Stallone mentions it in "First Blood". Anyone who thinks that a number of US soldiers were spit on and did not retaliate by whipping someones arse is admitting that they think US Soldiers are wussies. There is no way that you could spit on more than a select few soldiers and not get in a fist fight and someone having to write a report about the incident. It never happened.

Dear know-nothing/contribute-nothing,

For a fact, my father was spit on while shaving in a men's room in San Francisco on his return home via Tan Son Nhut in 1970. The coward did it on the way out of the men's room and ran like hell. Dad went after him but he had disappeared into the other smelly, worthless a-holes by the time he got to the entrance. They had to change into their civies on the DC-8 before they landed there to keep it to a minimum but obviously, in 1970 if you didn't stink and had a short haircut, you were probably a vet or at least supportive of the troops.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by CarrolltonTiger on 11/26/12 at 9:13 am to IceTiger

quote:It was so bad that the services had a policy in place that members fly commercial in civilian attire all the way into the 90s...

this isn't true for the Army, I flew in uniform regularly from the late 69 to 99.

the only thing that encouraged civilian attire at times was the ability to get an upgrade, if you were in uniform then you couldn't accept an upgrade as the government didn't want troops to appear to be travelling first class.

One difference was we couldn'travel commercialin fatigues or BDU's, which has now become the official flight uniform. Some places you couldn't go off post in fatigues unless it was going directly home.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by double d on 11/26/12 at 11:50 am to Powerman

My uncle and a few co-workers are Nam vets; most of the protests they saw upon coming home were non-violent but they did say there were some spitters in California...no suprise to me. I don't think it was the norm to be spit at but they were called baby killers constantly.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by Ace Midnight on 11/26/12 at 11:56 am to CarrolltonTiger

quote:this isn't true for the Army, I flew in uniform regularly from the late 69 to 99.

It was regulation, in fact, to travel in Class A/B on official orders, CONUS. I think that changed sometime in the late 80s, early 90s. Then it was Class A/B or civilian.

quote:One difference was we couldn'travel commercialin fatigues or BDU's, which has now become the official flight uniform. Some places you couldn't go off post in fatigues unless it was going directly home.

I generally refuse to fly commercial in ACUs, although I think I had to make one exception. I never flew commercial in BDUs. Old habits die hard - I'm getting to be a dinosaur, now.

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by lsu_tiger_az on 11/26/12 at 12:20 pm to mograyback

quote:The war was started by a false flag. No no.. don't argue. Its officially recognized that we fired first at Gulf of Tonkin. The lie that we told our people is the reason we we're allowed to go to war.

The war started on a false premise and a large amount of our soldiers represented our country very poorly. Of course people weren't going to receive them kindly, I'm glad.

Be that as it may, the blame would/should fall on those who ordered the troops into combat.....

re: Was the treatment of Vietnam soldiers returning home somewhat mythical?Posted by Paluka on 11/26/12 at 2:22 pm to Powerman

I have worked side-by-side with Vietnam combat veterans and have also worked to help other combat soldiers from this era.

One of my all-time favorite veterans was actually a "tunnel rat" while in Vietnam. He was all of 5 feet tall. One of the most patriotic and good people I have ever known.

He was spit on and had a bag of shite thrown at him after his first tour of duty in Vietnam by some hippie protesters.

When he got back from his 2nd tour they took him and his team in a taxi directly from the plane so they did not have to face protesters.

He told me that at that moment he was crushed, felt ashamed and was also angry. Danny was awarded 2 purple hearts and many other awards. He never backed down from any challenge. He also told me that at that moment he wanted to return to Vietnam to fight (again) because he felt he belonged with his fellow soldiers who did not reject him.

The problem was with the overall rejection of soldiers who were doing their duty. It was not necessary. The country discarded an entire group of combat vets who did their duty. As one combat vet told me "we could have just bombed that country into a fricking mud hole...it would have been faster and we wouldn't have been treated any worse."